Hansard debates

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) — The Andrews Labor government is implementing Victoria's largest ever suite of legislative measures to crack down on serious offenders, toughen sentences for serious and violent crimes and increase consequences for young offenders. The raft of reforms is required to address historic neglect and the failure of previous administrations, the last coalition government in particular, on baseline sentencing and to address emerging trends and demands.

Within this suite we have the Bail Amendment (Stage One) Bill 2017, the Children and Justice Legislation (Youth Justice Reform) Bill 2017 and the Sentencing Amendment (Sentencing Standards) Bill 2017. They deliver on a series of commitments made in response to the bail review, the community safety statement and a Sentencing Advisory Council report. We have seen how this is coming through the Parliament. The Bail Amendment (Stage One) Bill 2017, which we have discussed and debated, will implement key recommendations of Mr Paul Coghlan, QC, following the terrible Bourke Street tragedy in January of this year.

Under these reforms it will be harder than ever for serious offenders to get bail in Victoria and community safety will be given a much higher priority. Bail will be refused for a number of new offences, regardless of age — and that is the critical proposition — including aggravated home invasion and aggravated carjacking, unless there are exceptional circumstances, putting them in the same category as murder and terrorism. That is the highest level that is now being assessed.

There will also be a presumption against bail for many more offences, including rape, armed robbery and dangerous or negligent driving while pursued by police, which again has been an emerging issue that needs to be addressed. That is what the government has done. In addition, people who commit serious indictable offences while on bail, summons, parole, serving a community correction order or are otherwise under sentence will not be granted bail again unless they can prove there are exceptional circumstances. The government will introduce a second wave of bail reforms later this year which will cover more complex matters, including giving police more powers to remand and clarifying the unacceptable risk and reverse onus tests.

This is the legislative architecture the government has put in place, and this bill we are now debating is another one of these key reforms. On sentencing, the headline in the Age of 25 May this year sums up the strategy. The headline is 'Victorian government tells court to lock violent criminals up for longer'. There it is. That states it bluntly. The introduction to the article states:

Murderers and rapists face tougher sentences under an Andrews government plan to lock up offenders for longer.

The article continues:

New laws will create standard sentences for 13 serious crimes in a bid to force judges to imprison offenders for longer.

Data from the sentencing council shows the average sentence for rape is five years, one month — but the new standard set by Parliament will be 10 years.

The standard sentence for murder will be 25 years and drug trafficking of a commercial quantity will be 16 years.

…

Judges will have to consider the standard sentence for each crime, along with the seriousness of the offence, the individual circumstances of the case, and the relevant maximum penalty.

…

The tough new sentencing regime follows a report from the Sentencing Advisory Council which was commissioned after the Court of Appeal found that the baseline sentencing scheme was unworkable.

This is an issue that I have addressed on a number of occasions because of the coalition's incredible arguments against the fact. This is the pattern of behaviour. If you do not like the facts, just present alternative facts. Let us just move to the post-Trump world view of how you actually do politics.

Mr Gidley interjected.

Mr McGUIRE — The member for Mount Waverley is recidivist-in-chief. You do not have to take my word for it. Just go and actually have a look at what the judgement was from Victoria's Court of Appeal.

Mr Gidley interjected.

Mr McGUIRE — He says, 'Everybody but the government'. I hear the voice from the other side of the chamber, the informed view of the member for Mount Waverley. He wants to dispute Victoria's appeals court. There is no argument in this. They said bluntly, 'It is unworkable'. It is one of the most scathing critiques I have seen of legislation by our highest court. It is now a case study for juris doctorate students at the University of Melbourne on how not to do it. This is not a debatable point.

Mr Gidley interjected.

Mr McGUIRE — The member for Mount Waverley can be the last galah at the end of the line for as long as he wants, but it does not change the fact. That is the point. What he is trying to do is aggregate anxiety and fear without ever going to the facts. That is all he is doing. He has no remedy, no responsibility. He is not looking at what needs to be done, and in the face of a decision by the appeals court of Victoria, he wants to just deny it ever happened. I mean, this just beggars belief. I hope this is called out by the media for the repeated way that it is done.

We need to move beyond this proposition, because this goes to higher issues. We had grown up in a time when we actually pursued enlightenment — that the facts counted, that there was intellectual rigour and that we actually had evidence-based propositions. Now, under what the Guy-led coalition are doing, it is: 'Let's just trash the place. Let's just tear it down. Let's say whatever we think will get the headline of the day without care, without responsibility, without accuracy, without fairness, without balance — let's just trash the place'. Does this fix anything? No. That is the critical point. It does not solve any of the issues that are complicated and need to be addressed in a thoughtful, considered manner, as is being done by this government in rolling out the key reforms that are required.

Mr Gidley — Sat on your hands.

Mr McGUIRE — He goes, 'Sat on your hands'. Here it is again. I hear that galah at the end of the fence again — 'Sat on your hands'. Let us get it straight: we had a one-term coalition government, two years of doing little and then two years of chaos. That is what happened. Then what did we have? We had the whole thing about: 'Let's bang the drum on baseline sentencing before the election'. It was another law and order election — 'Let's whip up fear and anxiety'. And it did not work; that is the point. It does not matter how many ways you want to deny it; the court said it will not work and it cannot work. In all my time either in journalism or in public debates I have never seen such severe criticism as was levelled against that proposition. That goes to the heart of the matter. What have they learned? They have learned nothing. The member for Mount Waverley still wants to argue the toss on that play.

Let us actually have a look at what baseline sentencing is now. Baseline sentencing was seen as overly complex in the modelling. It relied on comparative and statistical analysis. Baseline sentencing was expressed by reference to an abstract future statistical point, whereas standard sentencing is a legislative guidepost that courts must take into account when sentencing an offender. The baseline sentencing scheme did not provide a mechanism or guidance to the courts for the achievement of the baseline medium. In November 2015 the Court of Appeal held that the baseline provisions were 'incapable of being given any practical operation'.

That is really the headline for this coalition — 'incapable of being given any practical operation'. They cannot get it done. They did not get it done the last time, and that is the issue. They want us all to have amnesia. They are wanting to convince the media to forget about what happened. 'Let's not mention the war. Let's not talk about the Baillieu-Napthine one-termers. Let's not talk about baseline sentencing in the context with which it was judged'. As I say, it was not the Green Left Weekly that gave this decision on you. You have got to understand that this is the appeals court of Victoria.

Under the standard sentencing scheme a court must take into account standard sentences when sentencing an offender for a standard sentence offence and explain how the sentences imposed relate to the standard sentence. I commend the bill to the house.